History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c14.s1.5

c14.s1.5

Firishta and Hajji-ad-Dabīr are contemporaries but they do not appear to have met or consulted each other. Firishta presented his history to Ibrahim ‘Adil Shah in 1015 A.H. (1606 A.D.) while Hajji-ad-Dabīr was still engaged upon his work. Firishta quotes no less than 35 works which he utilised in preparing his history and names 20 others in the body of the text from which he makes citations. Though the *Tarikh-i-Mubārak Shahi* and the *Tarikh-i-Bahādur Shahi* are included in his list, he makes mention of no contemporary history dealing with the Tughluqs other than those that are known to us. He largely bases his account upon Barani, Nizam-al-Din and Yahya and refers to several other works in the course of his narrative. Some European scholars look upon him as a mere plagiarist, but this judgment is a little too severe in view of the fact that the methods of scientific writing and critical interpretation were unknown to mediæval scholars. Firishta’s chronology is defective, his statements are sometimes inconsistent and in the midst of conflicting statements of various historians he finds himself in great difficulty and adopts a curiously indecisive attitude. But in the volume of matter and the simplicity of his style he excels many other Persian writers. He has a fuller acquaintance with Deccan history and mentions among his authorities the *Bahmannamah*, the *Sirāj-al-tawārīkh* by Mulla Muhammad Lāri and the *Tuhfatuh Salātīn Bahmani* by Mulla Daud Badari which are scarce. Strangely enough he does not mention the *Burhān-i-Māsir* of ‘Ali bin ‘Azizullah Tabātabā which appeared about 1596 A.D. Probably this was due to professional rivalry. The *Burhān* which was commenced in 1000 A.H. (1591 A.D.) as is shown by the title which is a chronogram was written in the Deccan and its author must have had access to reliable sources of information. There are several discrepancies in the two works regarding the names and genealogies of some of the Bahmanī kings. The account of the origin of Hasan Kāngū given by the *Burhān-i-Māsir* is quite different from that given by Firishta and it is supported by a number of earlier and later authorities and by numismatic evidence. The *Burhān* at once supplements and corrects Firishta in several particulars and altogether it is a valuable history of the Deccan. Major King has translated it in the *Indian Antiquary* Vol. xxviii (119—55) and Luzac and Co. have published a reprint of the translation. I have utilised Prof. J. N. Sarkar’s MS. which has been transcribed from the India office MS.